[MD] The other side of reified

[MarshaV]

On Jun 1, 2011, at 1:54 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> 
> Marsha said:
> Buddhist’s expanded meaning of reification: In Buddhist philosophy the concept of reification goes further.  Reification means treating any functioning phenomenon as if it were a real, permanent 'thing', rather than an impermanent process."
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> The MOQ goes just as far, specifically at the point where Pirsig is explaining James's radical empiricism and its positions with respect to subject and objects. As a matter of fact, James and Pirsig are both rightly called process philosophers. But you go even further. You go too far so that reification is part of the conceptualization process. This is just a ham-handed condemnation of all concepts. This is not only unsupported by the quotes you post, it is also a logical impossibility and the consequences of such of view is a moral nightmare. It fails every intellectual standard I can think of. AND you aim this nonsense at all the wrong targets.

Marsha:
I do not think you are the one who determines how far the MoQ may go.  While James is an interesting historical event, his point-of-view should not confine or put limits on the the MoQ.  If the correlation between RMP and James works for you, that's fine.  But you are not the authority to make absolute decisions for everyone else, especially since RMP has written that "The Metaphysics of Quality is not intended to be within any philosophic tradition"  

In spite of what's in your little mind concerning my view, I assure you the quotes on reification that I have presented certainly do represent my point-of-view.  And what you tout as "every intellectual standard" is nothing to me.  It makes me laugh that you think it would be in any way significant.  


> dmb:
> If you were genuinely concerned about reification, you'd be barking up Ham's tree and you'd be wildly at odds with Krimel's scientific reductionism and with Bo, who thinks the MOQ is reality. They all reify the hell out of everything and they're hardly compatible with each other. But you think they're just swell and instead you're using a Buddhist critique of reification to push back against Pirsig and James, who are firmly opposed to reification and are firmly on the side of Buddhism. What an idiot! You're always barking up the wrong tree because you miss the point of everything, even your own evidence!

Marsha:
I may be missing YOUR point, but I find that to be a very dull point, very dull indeed...  It is hardly worthy of consideration.  


> dmb:
> Making sense just isn't on your list of priorities. Apparently, for you, this forum is just some kind of social club and you pick sides based on what's going to help or hurt your chances of becoming the prom queen - or whatever. (You're one of the most popular girls in this sentence!)  It's hard to imagine what kind of person would even find that respectable, let alone be persuaded by it. Haven't you ever noticed that nobody is buying your anti-intellectual nihilism? Why do you suppose that is? I guess you think that's my fault, thus your obsession with my "authority", (whatever that means). Or maybe you just want my attention so desperately that you're willing to the play the fool. 


Marsha:
Oh my, my,,, could your hyperbole be more fascinating???   




 
___